The ILP Utopia

Meta
21

This is stupid.

Utopia? The ILovePhilosophy Utopia

We strive on conflict, on debate and arguments… we can’t even define what a word is, and we’re trying to make a utopia? What the hell for? This site will never be perfect… and we shouldn’t want to make it that way.

I’m not saying we need a wasteland of stupidness, but certainly a ‘Utopia’ shouldn’t be our aim.

We, being the humans that we are (yes… all of here are only mortal) need conflict, need anger and displeasure. This thread is an example of that.

How bout this…

  1. Change PHM, it needs to be changed… i think we can all agree on that.

  2. If a poster is being an Iron Dog or something… then someone can make a ‘motion to dismiss’ or something like that. It could be a sticky or something… the thread will be voted on by the members of ILP. Basically the thread is a 1 on 1, a battle of whits so to speak. If the person proves to really be a waste of our time, the members will certainly see the subject in question exposed. If the person accused get say… 10 votes against them. They’re banned.

22

Old_Gobbo writes

Yet Philosophy is defined in the dictionary as:

So the pursuit of wisdom from the love of it is sustained through the natural human inclination towards conflict, argument, anger and displeasure.

Makes me wonder if there still is attraction to this love that doesn’t require these normal means for sustaining it that could allow certain select boards to thrive strictly from the motivation to understand without the necessity of these delights.

23

Don’t misunderstand Ben - he just used that word as a slightly humourful name for the thread. We’re not attempting to create a utopia, just get your thoughts on what will improve the site.

24

Well… Utopia thing aside, you have my thoughts.

25

Determine the goals for ILP, create and publish a mission statement enumerating those goals. Encourage visitors to create and support an atmsophere where those goals can be attained. Punish those incapable of doing this.

Until then, ILP will be populated, in large part, by scumbags and poseurs.

26

I would say the motivation to understand is always there in a sort of transient way. I mean, even when we are getting along, we are really disagreeing. So take this example…

-Bob read something in a post by Tim. He says “Hey, can you explain what you mean here please?” ← Now it is here that Bob has said to himself, “I disagree” because if he had have agreed, he wouldn’t have asked for an explanation in the first place. You can’t really disagree with something that is exactly the same as you understand it to be.

Stupid arguments that go nowhere are just a circular form of disagreeing, but we need those same people to offer us the initial material we disagree with as in the example. This is not to say we cannot disagree, it is only to say that we’ll go nowhere by all agreeing with the exact same concepts. At this point the music would have stopped so to speak.

We all want to go forwards in time, and the majority of us here want to evolve our intelligence as the days pass, but there can be end goal other than to simply excersize our brains as the tool they are. Who would want to the find the theory of everything? Who wants to strive towards a God they will never see in their lifetime, let alone the remote chance their future offspring will succeed in finding something that may not even be there. What if the universe just keeps changing forever, and we’re just in too small of a timeframe to even notice a change? etc

If one of us got a glimpse of the divine truth, we’d probably go mad anyways. It’s all a game folks, and words are the tool we’ve choosen to use in order to think. Personally… I’ll take the arts, in all their aesthetic over logic any day - because that is where we excell… it’s how we’re hardwired, it’s the reason we’re not beating off and throwing our shit around - heh, it’s the reason for the monkey thing :smiley:

27

Once I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Rotary Club. (It’s a businessman’s club.) At their meeting, when someone spoke out of turn, they were penalised by having to donate five or ten dollars to a charity. Several obviously interrupted on purpose and happily wrote out their checks. (God bless 'em.)

How about this idea for ILP.com?: Anyone forwarding a logical fallacy should have to send ben two dollars per fallacy* for the support of the website. (Except when in Rant House or Mundane Babble.)

…That is, if we could agree on which arguments are fallacies.

  • And fifty cents for every misuse of /ther/ or /yor/.

mrn

28

Hi Old_Gobbo

The issue IMO isn’t disagreement. It is a question of attitude. What is your attitude towards disagreement in respect to the Love of Wisdom? Do you see it as an argument of a discussion?

It isn’t strictly a matter of intelligence. Logic is only the beginning of wisdom. Simone Weil was one of the most intelligent women of the twentieth century and look how she values intelligence in relation to philosophy:

Arguing denies this opening for understanding and continues to affirm and deny… From her perspective, when logic has done its work the mind is now opened for contemplation. Do you see the difference in attitude I am referring to?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of these New Age types preaching unconditional love and the like. I’m fully aware of man’s fascination for struggle and the great world champion Dr. Emanuel Lasker wrote of chess as the struggle between two minds and man’s delight in this. He was right as every chess player knows.

However, the pursuit of wisdom is a struggle with oneself and our attitudes are largely what deny wisdom. Sharing perspectives is disagreement but healthy from the perspective of the shared desire to understand as a human being and not just as a computer.

Wisdom can reveal truth. If we have the wisdom to appreciate the human condition, IMO this “art” you believe we excel in, will be revealed as not really art but this excellence is largely only expressions of imagination that deny wisdom. Often it is just another way of beating off and throwing our shit around that allows us to get paid for it.

But the issue for me is still attitude. Water seeks its own level and there is nothing wrong with several lakes of different depths responding to the different desires of members now and those that would come as a result. One day you may feel like babbling on in Mundane Babble to such a degree that you would have made the ancient city of Babylonia proud. Yet, at times, you may want to explore the depths of the matter in a setting known to be conducive for it. Choice. :slight_smile:

29

What could be changed about ILP?

Firstly, the website is very good and offers a lot to a lot of different kind of people. There’s philosophy, comedy, drama, musing, and great social commentary.

I once read a story about a wise man at the gates of a city that was greeted by two different travelers. The first traveler asked if the city was filled with evil people. The wise man said that the city was filled with evil people. The second traveler said that he had heard the city was filled with nice people, and the man agreed that the city was filled with wonderful people. Another fellow had been listening to the interactions and came to accuse the wise man of lying to people. The wise man then stated that everyone would find a city that was a reflection of their nature. It’s the same at ILP.

That’s one point, but another that is important to me is the flow and eventual emulsification of the site. One may not want to eat a raw potato, but if one simply waits while it is baked or fried or boiled or broiled, then one might just find a tasty treat. Additionally, each potato tastes a little different and one does not always know how the cooking process will affect it or just how long that cooking process might take. It is my belief that many of the topics and ideas that get tossed around are in the raw or undercooked state. If one judged food in this manner a lot of good meals would be thrown out.

That is the reason why I think that threads should be allowed to progress even when they become extremely provocative. Who can say where it’s going or what insights have been gained, or will be gained, from even the silliest exchanges? However, I can understand the desire to censor content if say a bunch of neo-nazis decided to set up shop here. Generally, I’m not talking about that kind of thing though.

I do have a solution that will still allow thread locking, while maintaining the free philosophical nature of the site. A warning can be posted that requires the posters to state the reasoning behind why the thread maintains its importance. If something convincing is not developed in short order, then the thread gets locked. This prevents the feeling that free speech is being squashed and even presents a challenge in league with freedom.

30

Nick A,

Great post to OG.

Smiles,

aspacia

31

Very nice, Ad… the honeymoon has settled your head quite nicely! :smiley: Of course, I am off the carbs, so I enjoy the food analogies.

32

Thanks, this site should not be about getting censored by potential intellectual inferiors.

33

I don’t understand what all the fuss is about?

PROBLEM:
Some people want more moderation,
Some people want less,
Some people want different moderators and
Some people think others’ posts should be moderated – but not theirs.

SOLUTION

  1. Moderate the serious sections only – to keep focus and quality. This is the very core and touchstone of ILP. If this is lost, then ILP is lost.
  2. Make the mundane/rant sections a moderation-free zone.

This way both groups of people get what they want.
This way it would be much easier for moderators to decide whether a post is adding to the topic (in the serious section) or not.
Note: There’s no rule against duplicating a topic in the serious section, for example, if you want to avoid the Taurus excreta of mundane babble.

RE PERSONAL ATTACKS IN MUNDANE/RANT SECTION
For heavens sake; we’re adults.
We don’t need someone to tell us what to say and how to say it. We don’t need to be policed in the mundane/rant threads.
We can always leave the thread if we don’t like it and/or we can stop responding to a person if we don’t like him/her. (Why people complain about PoR then continually give him fuel is beyond me???)

So, what’s the problem? I just don’t see one.

One last thing: get over the navel gazing on this issue. I think there’s four threads about this now. Take a stand and let the board get back to taking about issues. All of this constant talk about quality “going down hill” etc is becoming a self fulfilling prophesy.

ILP will always have its seasons – its highs and lows. If its boring for a few weeks, big deal. Post something exciting, take a break or, heaven forbid, READ A BOOK.

ILP is a knowledge/information resource, its not in the entertainment business. If you are not being entertained, it’s because you are in the wrong place, not ILP.

PS ILP is still the best board of its type around. Others will have their honeymoon period (like zenofellers) but will eventually sink into the sunset because it’s centred around one, very large, ego (and a bit of lite entertainment) whereas ILP is built around philosophy and intelligent conversation. Viva La ILP :smiley:

EDIT: Thanks Bess (for the comment below.) :blush:

34

See why I missed him? Perfect!

35

But I feel like no matter what your attitude, you need disagreement to advance your knowledge. Don’t regard ‘disagreement’ as this like… angry confrontational nature, it can take that form if you so require… but to disagree, is mearly to be presented with anything that does not conform to your understanding… because that is what it is to disagree, to be misinformed. You cannot disagree (in any real sense) with something you know to be exactly the same as your understanding of it. If somene says the sky is blue, you can say ‘no its not’ but you are lying to yourself. If you see it as blue, you will have to agree that is it blue.

This can also be expanded to philosophy, where even simple definitions of concepts we take for granted are brought into court. I find that philosohy is mostly the knowledge of different philosophers. Who is to say that Plato is wrong? Science perhaps… but his is ‘just another theory’ just like that same science. We have to make our own decisions.

So in this way I agree that it’s about attitude, I mean… it would have to be, but I don’t see any value in wisdom other than utility. If I were to be placed on an island and told I’d be alone till I died… why would I really feel the need to learn about intellectual issues? To survive… that is it. What is more universal: fear or laziness? Humans do things to survive… we study philosophy and get ‘smart’ so that we can get the job, and outdo smart ass people on the internet. Art however is the true reason for our existence, and I’ll prove it to you:

Would you rather give up one of your baby toes or go the rest of your life without listening to music? It is hard to comprehend the entire nature of the ‘artistic’ branch of humanity, but it is there nonetheless and I feel like this is where we should focus… not science.

36

Opps!

redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/admin.htm

37

Damn, that’s a good description. Not such a great pic tho…

38

:smiley: :smiley:

Funny explanation of the life of an admin.

39

You guys should read the whole site—it’s funny.